"Strange" teachings of John Paul II

[RSiscoe]

In all due respect to Fr. Harrison, I think that is a straw man argument. I am very familiar with what the SSPX teaches. I know many SSPX member and priest, and they do not hold that John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are heretics. That is not their position. That is not to say that certain priest within the SSPX. or certain people who attend their masses do not believe that (some secretly might), but that is not the position of the SSPX.

And I am not sure when Fr. Harrison wrote that article, but I wonder what he thinks today. This is why I say that: A few months ago I purchased a set of tapes defending the total inherency of the Bible (which was recorded very recently). The main speaker was Gerry Matatics (I think he put on the conference that they tape recorded). There were three other speakers, two of whom were Robert Senguinis and Fr. Harrison.

Now, Gerry Matatics attends Mass at an SSPX Church, and Robert Sungenis has recently become an outspoken critic of the post Vatican II hierarchy, and the new mass, yet Fr. Harrison had no problem joining them on stage at the conference. He was right long side of two “radical traditionalists”. So I wonder if Fr. Harrison still thinks as he did when he wrote tht article? I doubt it because what he wrote in that article does not correspond to the SSPX position regarding the post Vatican II Popes. So, whether he still thinks the SSPX is in schism or not, he certainly now knows that they do not hold that the last few Popes, “along with the Bishop’s in the world who are union with them” were all heretics.

And one more thing: You always try to portray me as an SSPX’er. Why is that? Is it because if you admit that I go to an Indult Mass you cannot criticize me? I am not an SSPX member (although I do atttend mass there from time to time). In fact, I actually have a problem with some things that they do, and have discussed it with several SSPX priests, who had no defence and even agreed with me, that such things were wrong.

So it is not accurate to describe me as an SSPX member. When I do attend the SSPX it is out of necessity. If there was a FSSP, or Christ the King Church nearby, I would attend there.

But, just for the record, I personally do believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was not only justified to do what he did, but will be canonized for it once we get out of the mess we are in. But this is just my personal opinion and I certainly could be mistaken. Time will tell.

 

[DavidJoseph]

RSiscoe:

Please tell me what ecumenism is, and what you believe I am require to submit to? I am really looking forward to your answer.

All that the Church teaches about ecumenism, that’s what – INCLUDING the Vatican II documents that deal with ecumenism!

Please read that essay whose link I provided. In addition, please go here: jloughnan.tripod.com/chetshet.htm

Go first to the A section to the topic under “Assisi” and then scroll down to the E section to the topics under “ecumenism.”

And regarding your comment to itsjustDave about being schismatic, well, you may not be a member of the SSPX and thus not in formal schism, but you definitely have a schismatic mentality, which could very well lead to formal schism unless you swallow your pride and submit to the Magisterium. I mean, didn’t I read that you’re a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism? Why, then, would you want to continue to act Protestant? Yet that’s exactly what you do when you take it upon yourself to interpret Church Tradition rather than leave it to the Church.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Rsiscoe,

I attend a tridintine mass here in Oregon. I would not attend an SSPX mass. What necessity is so grave that you would attend a schismatic mass? If I am in trouble, I attend the english mass or find another church in communion with rome. Byzantine is neat.
I am not criticising you, but I am astonished.

Are you trying to ecumenical and bring the SSPXers back into communion with rome?

 

[RSiscoe]

DavidJoseph:

All that the Church teaches about ecumenism, that’s what – INCLUDING the Vatican II documents that deal with ecumenism!

But I want to hear in your words what Ecumenism is. Please define it for me in your own words. Or are you uncertain what it is?

 

[RSiscoe]

Huiou Theou:

Rsiscoe,

I attend a tridintine mass here in Oregon. I would not attend an SSPX mass. What necessity is so grave that you would attend a schismatic mass? If I am in trouble, I attend the english mass or find another church in communion with rome. Byzantine is neat.
I am not criticising you, but I am astonished.

Are you trying to ecumenical and bring the SSPXers back into communion with rome?

I would certainly be willing to explain why I attend an SSPX Mass from time to time, but I really don’t think you would understand. That is not an insult at all, I just don’t think you would understand my reason. But, my reason is valid and I am very comfortable with it in conscience.

However, I also love the Indult Mass I attend. Actually, I like the Indult Mass more than the SSPX Church, because of the externals - very good chior, very nice Church, etc. - but there is a valid reason for my attending the SSPX Mass from time to time.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Obviously, you haven’t read the article I posted from Fr. Brian Harrison, as your prior post makes no sense whatsoever.

I didn’t accuse you of being an SSPXer, but it is obvious you are a Lefebvrist apologist.

… But this is just my personal opinion and I certainly could be mistaken. Time will tell.

Which is precisely my point. How much time? How many popes will Lefebvrist apologists, such as you, disparage before you realize that your batting for the wrong team? When the next pope champions the orthodoxy of Vatican II, you gonna accuse him of teaching contrary to 2000 years of Catholic doctrine as well?

For Fr. Brian Harrison’s view, I suggest you google, “Brian Harrison” and read his articles. He’s no Lefebvrist apologist. In fact the Seattle Catholic stated: “Perhaps the most prominent defender of [Dignitatis Humanae] in the English language has been Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.”

 

[De_Maria]

Hi

RSiscoe:

But I want to hear in your words what Ecumenism is. Please define it for me in your own words. Or are you uncertain what it is?

Like any word, ecumenism has many meanings. For me, the primary meaning which most fits this discussion is the movement to achieve unity among Christians and ultimately the whole world in obedience to the great commission of Jesus Christ, “make disciples of the whole world baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

What do you think “ecumenism” means?

As for your contention that JPII contradicted the teachings of (his own) catechism and that of the Catechism of Trent, I disagree. In the very document which you referenced he said,
**
"It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is in Hebrew and in Greek (cf. Acts 2:311.**

and further:
**
In this way Paul seems to link Christ’s “descent” (among the dead), of which he speaks in the Letter to the Romans, with his ascension to the Father, which begins the eschatological “fulfilment” of all things in God.**

Therefore, JPII did not contradict previous Catholic Teaching or he would have contradicted his own Catechism and his own words in this article.

Perhaps because you are of Protestant background you have not understood that Catholicism is a “both/and” religion. We have our cake and eat it too. “Metaphorical” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it means it happened and the burial was the efficacious sign, the metaphor, for what actually happened. And that is what JPII means. Just as Baptism is a sign of cleansing and effectively cleanses our souls and Bread and Wine are a sign of nourishment and the Eucharist nourishes our souls. Therefore JPII meant that the burial signified that Jesus actually went to the abode of the dead in accordance with previous Catechisms and Church teaching.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[mtr01]

You know, I only got to post #34, and the same thing kept hitting me in the face over and over again. Perhaps it was dealt with in the subsequent posts, perhaps not. But I came to it, so I feel I should address it.

Namely RSicsoe’s continual misreading of the Holy Fathers comments. This is what he says:

RSiscoe:

I did not find this argument on a website.

If you would read what the Pope wrote for yourself - very clearly and slowly - you will see exactly what he means. He says that hell is the abode of the dead, as you said. He also says that it is in the earth. But he then goes on to say that the phrase “descended into hell” means that Our Lord’s body was buried in the earth. In otherwords, hell is located in the earth, and Our Lord’s body was buring in the earth: that is what “descended into hell” means - that His body was buried in the earth. That is false. In fact, it is exactly NOT what the term “descended into hell” means". It means his souls dscended into Limbo, not that His body was buried.

Read it again, and you will see for yourself.

After reading it again, the error is even more obvious to me. Nowhere in the text does the pope say that “desceded into hell” means that Jesus’ body was buried in the earth. Here are the remarks copied from the original post:

“As is evident from the texts quoted, the article of the Apostles’ Creed, “he descended into hell”, is based on the New Testament statements , after his death on the Cross, into the “region of death”, into the abode of the dead", which in Old Testament language was called the “abyss”. If the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of “the lower parts of the earth”, it is because the earth receives the human bodyafter death, and so it received also the body of Christ who expired on Calvary, as described by the Evangelists

Taking RSiscoe’s advice and reading it slowly, we see nothing that supports RSiscoe’s claim. First, the pope acknowledges that based on the New Testament, Christ descended into “the place of the dead” or “hell”. He then reconciles Paul’s use of “the lower parts of the earth” to mean His being placed in the tomb. Nowhere does the pope equate “the abode of the dead” with being laid in the tomb.

 

[RobbyS]

RSiscoe:

In all due respect to Fr. Harrison, I think that is a straw man argument. I am very familiar with what the SSPX teaches. I know many SSPX member and priest, and they do not hold that John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are heretics. That is not their position. That is not to say that certain priest within the SSPX. or certain people who attend their masses do not believe that (some secretly might), but that is not the position of the SSPX.

And I am not sure when Fr. Harrison wrote that article, but I wonder what he thinks today. This is why I say that: A few months ago I purchased a set of tapes defending the total inherency of the Bible (which was recorded very recently). The main speaker was Gerry Matatics (I think he put on the conference that they tape recorded). There were three other speakers, two of whom were Robert Senguinis and Fr. Harrison.

Now, Gerry Matatics attends Mass at an SSPX Church, and Robert Sungenis has recently become an outspoken critic of the post Vatican II hierarchy, and the new mass, yet Fr. Harrison had no problem joining them on stage at the conference. He was right long side of two “radical traditionalists”. So I wonder if Fr. Harrison still thinks as he did when he wrote tht article? I doubt it because what he wrote in that article does not correspond to the SSPX position regarding the post Vatican II Popes. So, whether he still thinks the SSPX is in schism or not, he certainly now knows that they do not hold that the last few Popes, “along with the Bishop’s in the world who are union with them” were all heretics.

And one more thing: You always try to portray me as an SSPX’er. Why is that? Is it because if you admit that I go to an Indult Mass you cannot criticize me? I am not an SSPX member (although I do atttend mass there from time to time). In fact, I actually have a problem with some things that they do, and have discussed it with several SSPX priests, who had no defence and even agreed with me, that such things were wrong.

So it is not accurate to describe me as an SSPX member. When I do attend the SSPX it is out of necessity. If there was a FSSP, or Christ the King Church nearby, I would attend there.

But, just for the record, I personally do believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was not only justified to do what he did, but will be canonized for it once we get out of the mess we are in. But this is just my personal opinion and I certainly could be mistaken. Time will tell.

One can always think of a leader as another Athanasius, when he might in fact be another Arius. So many heretics have been men who sounded like the fathers but were really only antiquarians.

 

[RobbyS]

mtr01:

You know, I only got to post #34, and the same thing kept hitting me in the face over and over again. Perhaps it was dealt with in the subsequent posts, perhaps not. But I came to it, so I feel I should address it.

Namely RSicsoe’s continual misreading of the Holy Fathers comments. This is what he says:

After reading it again, the error is even more obvious to me. Nowhere in the text does the pope say that “desceded into hell” means that Jesus’ body was buried in the earth. Here are the remarks copied from the original post:

Taking RSiscoe’s advice and reading it slowly, we see nothing that supports RSiscoe’s claim. First, the pope acknowledges that based on the New Testament, Christ descended into “the place of the dead” or “hell”. He then reconciles Paul’s use of “the lower parts of the earth” to mean His being placed in the tomb. Nowhere does the pope equate “the abode of the dead” with being laid in the tomb.

Maybe the old notion of the harrowing of hell needs to be brought in. If I understood Mel Gibson cortrvyly that is the mean of the scene with Satan loooking up and screaming in a desolute place.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

rwoehmke:

Question? I was taught in Geology 101 that the center of the earth is composed of molten iron,

I hope no one thinks that modern geology is evil ​

if this is so then it would seem that the phrase “descend into hell” is itself a metaphor for some kind of movememnt into some other state of being and not literally a descent into the bowels of our planet. My problem with this thread as with others where RSISCOE raises a question is at first interesting and then invariably turns into a dog fight with everyone running in circles chasing their own tails. I would really prefer threads that enrich my faith but seem to always get suckered into trying to follow these dog fights to some logiocal conclusion that never seems to come. I guess you guys enjoy it all. If John Paul II or any of our Popes were heretics then Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer with His Church as He promised. I find that to be rather unbelievable.

IOW,​

“He descended into Hell” is not affirming that Our Lord undertook a movement in place, such as occurs in going from Jerusalem to Galilee:

It affirms that He descended “among the dead” - not in His Body, for that was buried; but in His Soul.

Hell is not within the earth - that would mean it would be destroyed when the earth is destroyed.

A problem only arises when one insists on treating prepositions which describing motion (whether spiritual or no) as motion from one place in space to another. We speak of being “on cloud nine” - no one takes that as asserting, that one is located on an entity in the atmosphere which distils water molecules; but instead, as describing a non-local state: in this case, a psychological one; nor is the Cloud of the Divine Glory an entity in the atmosphere; so if these are not difficulties, why should talk about descending among the dead have to affirm motion of the Body of Christ, and why should it be hard to understand as not doing so ?

After all, in speaking of the unseen world, the only language we have, is one which is used to describe things within the world we know from direct experience: so we have to speak of other-worldly realities in words which sound as if they are affirming motion in place, even if what we mean, is not not motion in place. A special difficulty is, that the death of Christ is a reality both of this world, and of the next - which is why the word “meta-historical” has been coined: it is a reality not confined to this world, the one of space & time.

In short, to speak rightly of the Death of Christ is very difficult, if not impossible.

God is described as having nostrils, eyes, a hand - but who takes this as directly attributing these things to God ? We can’t, without anthropomorphism - and that happens to be an error because it denies that God is Spirit. So if we press the meaning of words too far, we end in error.

And the same applies to the subject of this thread. #

 

[Tim_Prescott]

it is strange, people are focusing on these strange teaching of Jp2 such as the descent into hell, when he done many more herectical things such as his famous assisi gathering? wasnt this an abomination in the sight of God?

 

[_MM]

OK, not to demean anyone’s “pedastal” view of the pope, or ANY pope…

Does this yret again prove he is NOTHING more than mortal man.

Peter I know, Paul I know, Jesus I know…who is John Paul II?
Nobody.

The thing I find truly facinating is the belief that any “voted” pope is Christ’s vicar, translated representation here on earth. I do remember Jesus promising us the Holy Spirit, but never a pope.